DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Is the Contax N just a big screw up
- Thread starter joachim
- Start date
Austin, but have a look at the link I posted. This is a 21mm lens designed to work with the small YCMM mount. The results are from a full frame DigiSLR. This is way shorter than the 28mm you state and this is what amases me. I don't notice any severe vignetting (nor chromatic aberation) in the pictures on the sever.
To me this just shows, it can be done (now). I admit it is hindsight and might not have been obvious when the decision to introduce the N-mount was taken. Today giving up on the YCMM looks like the wrong decision for a small company like Contax/Kyocera.
With respect to Bjorn, I learned from a rep of the UK-importer about the digital G (about a year ago). He said it worked only with a subset of the lenses. If I remember correctly, he said it was the 28, 35 and 45. I don't recall whether this was full frame.
To me this just shows, it can be done (now). I admit it is hindsight and might not have been obvious when the decision to introduce the N-mount was taken. Today giving up on the YCMM looks like the wrong decision for a small company like Contax/Kyocera.
With respect to Bjorn, I learned from a rep of the UK-importer about the digital G (about a year ago). He said it worked only with a subset of the lenses. If I remember correctly, he said it was the 28, 35 and 45. I don't recall whether this was full frame.
Hi Joachim,
I can only say that physics are physics. One of the things I mentioned was that the lense can be designed to provide more perpendicular rays to the sensor. The 21 is a VERY unique lense in the Contax line. Note how long it is for a wide angle! Typically, wide angle lenses are short. The 21 is not. I haven't looked at the optical formula, but it makes sense that the 21 has the nodal point quite far from the film plane, which is why this lense is so long, and would make the exit rays far more perpendicular to the sensor wells. Also, this is the ONLY Contax lense they show tested. Other ones, like the 25, or the 18, will probably show significant vitnetting. Tests with those lenses would be far more telling IMO.
Regards,
Austin
Regards,
Austin
I can only say that physics are physics. One of the things I mentioned was that the lense can be designed to provide more perpendicular rays to the sensor. The 21 is a VERY unique lense in the Contax line. Note how long it is for a wide angle! Typically, wide angle lenses are short. The 21 is not. I haven't looked at the optical formula, but it makes sense that the 21 has the nodal point quite far from the film plane, which is why this lense is so long, and would make the exit rays far more perpendicular to the sensor wells. Also, this is the ONLY Contax lense they show tested. Other ones, like the 25, or the 18, will probably show significant vitnetting. Tests with those lenses would be far more telling IMO.
Regards,
Austin
Regards,
Austin
Bob (Kyocera Kid), my excuses.
I do not understand this digital hype. Most of the Contax customers like me bought their cameras, when Canon and Nikon showed up with big, fast AF-models and L-lenses and all that. But we were snobs. And that's what I think: Contax is a brand for snobs.
At the end, I needed fast AF for my work, so I bought a Nikon F5 and sold most of my Contax zoom lenses, because Nikons zooms for pros are as good as Zeiss. (Yes, I tried it, if you invest the same amount of money in the lenses you will not see any difference).
When I will need a digital slr some day, I will check what's best for me. If it's Canon or Nikon or Kodak, I'll go there. But not a C/Y-mount or Leica-R/Digital. I guess the Leica-R-Digital will either be a very small platform for a small amount of snobs or will die like the AX died, because snobs like MF and classical film. No pro will buy a MF digital SLR.
It's not that I am millionaire, it's because I work with my gear and I do like most people do with working tools like computers and cars. Only very few can afford to stay with one equipment for 20 years and longer. There are some who bought a "beetle" 20 years ago and want it faster and weep, that VW never offered a Porsche engine for it. But all others now have other cars that were up to their needs.
Take care
Martin
I do not understand this digital hype. Most of the Contax customers like me bought their cameras, when Canon and Nikon showed up with big, fast AF-models and L-lenses and all that. But we were snobs. And that's what I think: Contax is a brand for snobs.
At the end, I needed fast AF for my work, so I bought a Nikon F5 and sold most of my Contax zoom lenses, because Nikons zooms for pros are as good as Zeiss. (Yes, I tried it, if you invest the same amount of money in the lenses you will not see any difference).
When I will need a digital slr some day, I will check what's best for me. If it's Canon or Nikon or Kodak, I'll go there. But not a C/Y-mount or Leica-R/Digital. I guess the Leica-R-Digital will either be a very small platform for a small amount of snobs or will die like the AX died, because snobs like MF and classical film. No pro will buy a MF digital SLR.
It's not that I am millionaire, it's because I work with my gear and I do like most people do with working tools like computers and cars. Only very few can afford to stay with one equipment for 20 years and longer. There are some who bought a "beetle" 20 years ago and want it faster and weep, that VW never offered a Porsche engine for it. But all others now have other cars that were up to their needs.
Take care
Martin
I took a good look at the pictures from the referenced URL. There IS clear vignetting in the 21 (and the other) corners of the two images that show sky. Click on the images, and look at them full size. Go to the upper left, and you will see a gradient. It also shows the 21 is MUCH sharper ;-)...look at the shingles on the house in the sky/roof picture of the Renaissance house (or the pictures of the books, which I am not sure is a full image, but a crop).
Regards,
Austin
Regards,
Austin
I can confirm Bjorn and Joachim's stories about the prototype G digital and that I have been told we would have it today on the market if Kyocera/Zeiss were happy about its wide angle performance.
I too was told about it quite some time ago and I reported this back in Oct 2003 ......
Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 11:31 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This pricing/rebate thing does make me wonder if they're about to introduce a G3.... Selling existing supply to make way? Nah...." (Derek)
And ..... what about that Digital G prototype they were experimenting with .... I heard it was well underway ... if only they could iron out the problems with the wide angles.
Cheers, Bob.
Bjorn ..... yes! Working prototype of AF Contax based on 137MD shown to Press at Photokina 1982, with 3 handmade AF Zeiss 50/1.7, 35/2.8 and 135/2.8. It is believed to be the first fully working AF SLR. The Kyocera 230AF of 1986 appears to be based on the prototypes design.
In 1984 another AF version based on the 137MA was developed ... but not shown.
Source: Stejskal & Kuc
Cheers, Kyocera Kid.
I too was told about it quite some time ago and I reported this back in Oct 2003 ......
Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 11:31 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This pricing/rebate thing does make me wonder if they're about to introduce a G3.... Selling existing supply to make way? Nah...." (Derek)
And ..... what about that Digital G prototype they were experimenting with .... I heard it was well underway ... if only they could iron out the problems with the wide angles.
Cheers, Bob.
Bjorn ..... yes! Working prototype of AF Contax based on 137MD shown to Press at Photokina 1982, with 3 handmade AF Zeiss 50/1.7, 35/2.8 and 135/2.8. It is believed to be the first fully working AF SLR. The Kyocera 230AF of 1986 appears to be based on the prototypes design.
In 1984 another AF version based on the 137MA was developed ... but not shown.
Source: Stejskal & Kuc
Cheers, Kyocera Kid.
I think it is obvious that every producer has prototypes of different models, but only few will be finally produced.
There have been prototypes for Contax AF cameras, for Contax scanners, for a G3 and a digital G and I am sure also for a digital RX.
But we can be pretty sure that all pros and cons have been evaluated and that IMO the cons for a digital C/Y mount based camera have been stronger than the cons for a new N-line. No camera producers is risking to change a lens mount without having a good reason for it.
It seems that Canon has the only "old" lens mount which is big enough for full frame chip. Even if it is not as comfortable as the Contax N mount in size for fullframe chips. But it works more or less. And it is obvious that Canon will sooner or later offer fullsize chips in all digital SLRs.
Nikon can not do this because of the size of their lens mount and I guess Minolta and Leica neither. Even if you design new lenses for 2/3 chips, you have the problems with depth of field and it is getting a lot more expensive too.
In the case of Canon, although you "think" you can use all your old system, you actually have to buy a complete new Canon system to be able to come even close to the benefits of the N-mount and the full size chip.
From an investment perspective, at the end of the day you pay in both cases for a totally new system (new body and new digital optimized lenses). But with Canon it is a compromise with the old mount, which you actually do not need if you buy everything new anyway. And sooner or later, you have to do that, although the marketing from Canon tries to hide that fact.
With Contax N-system, you have a system (body AND lenses) that was made for full frame chip specifically. So IMO this is a no brainer which to choose. If there would be only more FFL in the N-system soon ...
There have been prototypes for Contax AF cameras, for Contax scanners, for a G3 and a digital G and I am sure also for a digital RX.
But we can be pretty sure that all pros and cons have been evaluated and that IMO the cons for a digital C/Y mount based camera have been stronger than the cons for a new N-line. No camera producers is risking to change a lens mount without having a good reason for it.
It seems that Canon has the only "old" lens mount which is big enough for full frame chip. Even if it is not as comfortable as the Contax N mount in size for fullframe chips. But it works more or less. And it is obvious that Canon will sooner or later offer fullsize chips in all digital SLRs.
Nikon can not do this because of the size of their lens mount and I guess Minolta and Leica neither. Even if you design new lenses for 2/3 chips, you have the problems with depth of field and it is getting a lot more expensive too.
In the case of Canon, although you "think" you can use all your old system, you actually have to buy a complete new Canon system to be able to come even close to the benefits of the N-mount and the full size chip.
From an investment perspective, at the end of the day you pay in both cases for a totally new system (new body and new digital optimized lenses). But with Canon it is a compromise with the old mount, which you actually do not need if you buy everything new anyway. And sooner or later, you have to do that, although the marketing from Canon tries to hide that fact.
With Contax N-system, you have a system (body AND lenses) that was made for full frame chip specifically. So IMO this is a no brainer which to choose. If there would be only more FFL in the N-system soon ...
Dirk, the Canon EF system of lenses isn't a recent change, Canon moved to EF mounts decades ago. Unlike Contax, the amount of photographers stuck with older FD mounts is tiny.
The notion that the Canon EF mount works "more or less" for full frame digital capture suggests that it is a compromise. I see little or no compromise at all with my EOS 1Ds using L primes. Nor do thousands of other professional photographers using the camera.
If you look at, and measure, the Canon EF and Contax N mounts side-by-side, they are exactly the same size. So how could one be a more "comfortable" for full frame sensors than the other?
The mirror box is different in the two cameras with the Contax one a little deeper set and the mirror angled back a bit more. Is this what you are referring to?
But, practically speaking, both the camera mounts accommodate full frame sensors as evidenced by the fact that both produce(d) full frame sensor digital cameras. Also, it is rumored that Canon will replace the 10D with a full frame prosumer digital this fall. Which, if true, offers further evidence of the forward thinking Canon employed ( or simply a lucky accident of engineering? )
Another piece of info shows the advancement of the digital onslaught: Kodak has evidently now solved the full frame issue using smaller lens mounts. So far the reports for the new 14ProN are favorable. It uses the smaller Nikon lens mount. I guess we'll have to wait to get more in-depth user opinions on that issue.
The notion that the Canon EF mount works "more or less" for full frame digital capture suggests that it is a compromise. I see little or no compromise at all with my EOS 1Ds using L primes. Nor do thousands of other professional photographers using the camera.
If you look at, and measure, the Canon EF and Contax N mounts side-by-side, they are exactly the same size. So how could one be a more "comfortable" for full frame sensors than the other?
The mirror box is different in the two cameras with the Contax one a little deeper set and the mirror angled back a bit more. Is this what you are referring to?
But, practically speaking, both the camera mounts accommodate full frame sensors as evidenced by the fact that both produce(d) full frame sensor digital cameras. Also, it is rumored that Canon will replace the 10D with a full frame prosumer digital this fall. Which, if true, offers further evidence of the forward thinking Canon employed ( or simply a lucky accident of engineering? )
Another piece of info shows the advancement of the digital onslaught: Kodak has evidently now solved the full frame issue using smaller lens mounts. So far the reports for the new 14ProN are favorable. It uses the smaller Nikon lens mount. I guess we'll have to wait to get more in-depth user opinions on that issue.
Hi Marc,
I have not used the Canon 1ds myself, so all what I know is what other users told me. And they said that they are not always satisfied in the wideangle area (vignetting etc.). This is why Zoerkendorfer got this push to make an adapter for the MM-lenses on Canon bodies.
Canon changed its lens mount (Minolta etc. too) to AF I think at the end of the 80ies. Which is around 13-16 years ago. I do not mind about the change of the lens mount though. I am not sure whether Canon thought about digital photography when they have choosen this lens-mount-size, but who knows.
I am not an engineer, so I can not say what the consequences of the different placements of the mirror box is. I also have never talked about this with Zeiss. Maybe someone else can help here out. Maybe it is a different angle the light falls on the chip when it is more backwards in the body.
I have not thought about the new Kodak-Nikon mount model though. I have not seen anything neither yet in this direction.
Fact is, that Canon is very strong in this area and will IMO always be the brand with the most aggressive price/performance ratio. But I also think that there have been reasons for buying Zeiss lenses for analogue cameras and hope there will be still some with a digital body.
I thought about a Canon for myself, but as I said, it would mean to buy a new system with new lenses. I have a N-System (analogue) and I am very happy with it, except the missing FFL and a few minor issues as with every camera. If somebody is new for both systems, it would be a tough call. If it would be sure that N-system gets supportet more in the future, I would favour Contax obviously.
I still think that there HAS TO come something on Photokina this year for th N-system (lenses and body). Everything else would not be logical. I only hope that my "logic" is the same as in the far est
I have not used the Canon 1ds myself, so all what I know is what other users told me. And they said that they are not always satisfied in the wideangle area (vignetting etc.). This is why Zoerkendorfer got this push to make an adapter for the MM-lenses on Canon bodies.
Canon changed its lens mount (Minolta etc. too) to AF I think at the end of the 80ies. Which is around 13-16 years ago. I do not mind about the change of the lens mount though. I am not sure whether Canon thought about digital photography when they have choosen this lens-mount-size, but who knows.
I am not an engineer, so I can not say what the consequences of the different placements of the mirror box is. I also have never talked about this with Zeiss. Maybe someone else can help here out. Maybe it is a different angle the light falls on the chip when it is more backwards in the body.
I have not thought about the new Kodak-Nikon mount model though. I have not seen anything neither yet in this direction.
Fact is, that Canon is very strong in this area and will IMO always be the brand with the most aggressive price/performance ratio. But I also think that there have been reasons for buying Zeiss lenses for analogue cameras and hope there will be still some with a digital body.
I thought about a Canon for myself, but as I said, it would mean to buy a new system with new lenses. I have a N-System (analogue) and I am very happy with it, except the missing FFL and a few minor issues as with every camera. If somebody is new for both systems, it would be a tough call. If it would be sure that N-system gets supportet more in the future, I would favour Contax obviously.
I still think that there HAS TO come something on Photokina this year for th N-system (lenses and body). Everything else would not be logical. I only hope that my "logic" is the same as in the far est
Marc,
"...the amount of photographers stuck with older FD mounts is tiny. "
WHAT? I have two issues with that. One is "stuck" and the second "amount/tiny". The Canon FD was one of the most prolific systems of all time. There are probably more FD lenses out there than most any other photographic system ever produced, even to this day. And now stuck...there are some of the best lenses ever made in that "series", some phenemenonal aspherical lenses, like the 55/1.2, the 85/1.2 and the 24/1.4. There are some dogs, but with such an extensive lense line-up (missing a 35/1.4 though), there are bound to be...but there are also quite a few stellar ones. No one is "stuck", even if there is a newer system available, and older tools is still useful, and with such support as it has, it's hardly a dead end system.
Austin
"...the amount of photographers stuck with older FD mounts is tiny. "
WHAT? I have two issues with that. One is "stuck" and the second "amount/tiny". The Canon FD was one of the most prolific systems of all time. There are probably more FD lenses out there than most any other photographic system ever produced, even to this day. And now stuck...there are some of the best lenses ever made in that "series", some phenemenonal aspherical lenses, like the 55/1.2, the 85/1.2 and the 24/1.4. There are some dogs, but with such an extensive lense line-up (missing a 35/1.4 though), there are bound to be...but there are also quite a few stellar ones. No one is "stuck", even if there is a newer system available, and older tools is still useful, and with such support as it has, it's hardly a dead end system.
Austin